• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

UK Petition to publish death stats after benefits stopped

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Just seen (and signed) this:
https://www.change.org/p/hm-courts-...people-have-died-after-their-benefits-stopped
https://www.change.org/p/hm-courts-...people-have-died-after-their-benefits-stopped

Ian Duncan Smith is attempting to block the publication of "death statistics" that will reveal how many people have died within six weeks of their benefits being stopped.

After a freedom of information request, The Information Commissioner’s Office has said that there is no reason not to publish these figures but Ian Duncan Smith's department - the Department of Work and Pensions - has launched an appeal to prevent the figures being made public.

I've started this petition to call on the Courts and Tribunal Service to dismiss this appeal and so prevent any further delay by the DWP in publishing these figures. Please support me.

For years there have been reports of people committing suicide or dying from ill-health soon after their benefits are stopped. As a partner of someone with a disability I have been through two benefit appeals and have also been a benefit tribunal representation - so I know from personal experience how stressful the system can be and the impact they have on families.

I believe the public needs to know the full impact of benefit changes.

In 2012 the Department of Work and Pensions published statistics which showed 10,600 people who had been receiving benefits died between January and November 2011. These figures caused an outcry, although many disabled campaigners disagreed over what the figures actually showed. Ministers then blocked publication of any updated figures.

Now, thanks to freelance journalist and carer, Mike Sivier, The Information Commissioner’s Office has admitted there is no reason not to publish them. This appeal is the last hurdle to overcome to get these figures out in the public.

Please support this petition to dismiss the appeal and publish the "death stats".

Letter to
HM Courts & Tribunal Service

Publish the statistics showing how many people have died after their benefits were stopped
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
The Information Commissioner’s Office has said that there is no reason not to publish these figures but Ian Duncan Smith's department - the Department of Work and Pensions - has launched an appeal to prevent the figures being made public.

What kind of rationale (that any citizen would accept) could there be for preventing these figures from being made public? I don't see how any civilized human being could see this as a reasonable thing to do. Yeah, Ian Duncan Smith has an investment in this information not getting out or he wouldn't go to all this trouble, but how can the people who have to approve such a move consider it anything but a dangerous restriction of public knowledge? o_O
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
What kind of rationale (that any citizen would accept) could there be for preventing these figures from being made public? I don't see how any civilized human being could see this as a reasonable thing to do. Yeah, Ian Duncan Smith has an investment in this information not getting out or he wouldn't go to all this trouble, but how can the people who have to approve such a move consider it anything but a dangerous restriction of public knowledge? o_O
If anyone tries to give me one of those condescending, paternalistic "the public can't handle the truth without over-reacting so we have to protect you from yourselves" arguments, I'm going to :vomit:. :grumpy::cautious:
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
If anyone tries to give me one of those condescending, paternalistic "the public can't handle the truth without over-reacting so we have to protect you from yourselves" arguments, I'm going to :vomit:. :grumpy::cautious:

No-one's even trying that, AFAIK. I think the general perception is that it's been done out of fear of revealing exactly how many dying people they've hurt, or possibly how many deaths they've cause through stress (including suicides).

It's unbelievable to me that this can be going on in a 'civilised' country.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
That article is dynamite. It would be great to have someone like Nick Cohen on our side.

But I disagree that IDS is incompetent. As I think Cohen's article illustrates, and states, he is rather a habitual manipulator. I like the old saying that Cohen quotes (I hadn't heard it before): "A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on."

The last line of the article is powerful and true - and depressing with regard to the state of politics in so many countries:
Our language has been so corrupted by the euphemisms of advertising and public relations that we no longer realise that what they mean is that they intend to lie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
But I disagree that IDS is incompetent. As I think Cohen's article illustrates, and states, he is rather a habitual manipulator.
I was going to say that the point is more that he's both, but I'm not so sure that's true anymore. I still think that IDS is genuine in his ideas about welfare, that it can be used to change the behaviour of it's recipients. The problems come when the reality doesn't match up to the rhetoric, when you've got, for example, massive cues of sick and disabled people appealing ESA decisions over and over because they can't work and genuinely have nowhere to go. For a certain amount of time, so strong are IDS's beliefs that reality can't be allowed to get in the way of them - things look bad but they'll soon pick up because he believes they will. So comes the statistical manipulation, a kind of holding pattern that's pressed into service in the meantime until the world starts working to his ideological leanings.

But it only lasts so long. What's been interesting as much as the vicious and failing projects has the been the massive retreats, under cover of extreme spin. Up until last summer, JSA sanctions were running at over three time as many as under Labour. When it started to get lots of unwelcome publicity, they halved in six months, the only example of such a massive month on month drop on record. In that time, ESA sanctions doubled - Peter was duly robbed to pay Paul. Presumably, the increasing fuss about how the mental ill are targeted on these sanctions will kick in over time and the pattern will change again.

In terms of ESA, the sanctions and conditionality of the WRAG are the worst of things now - it's actually been easier to get on to ESA over the last couple of years than it ever was to get Incapacity Benefit, the tricky bit is in the keeping it. However, another smokescreen has been erected around this, the better to hide how incompetent the government's policy towards the disabled has been and how misguided their "scrounger" rhetoric was. PIP has been a similar disaster, another benefit set up primarily to cut the numbers which is collapsing under the strain and admitting more people than it's predecessor.
That article is dynamite. It would be great to have someone like Nick Cohen on our side.
Nick Cohen is a great columnist, but he takes a very establishment position on science matters. I strongly suspect that ME would be dismissed as quackery in his world without a second thought.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Just received this update:
23 Jun 2015 — Yesterday our petition was discussed in Parliament!

Marie Rimmer MP and Debbie Abrahams MP asked Iain Duncan Smith why his department is refusing to publish the details of the number of people who have died within six weeks of their claims for incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance being stopped.

Once again the question went unanswered - instead Iain Duncan Smith said asking this question was 'disgraceful'.

You can read the full story in The Mirror here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claims-200000-strong-5932476

https://www.change.org/p/hm-courts-...-died-after-their-benefits-stopped/u/11164878

EDIT - there is a poll in the Mirror article - 97% currently voting for publication!
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Another update.

24 Jun 2015 — Today Mr Iain Duncan Smith has been caught out being more than economical with the truth in his reply to Ms Abrahams
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/06/24/duncan-smith-chastised-over-benefit-deaths-lie/

Today Prime Minister David Cameron insisted the data "will be published and is being prepared for publication as we speak". BUT .......
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefit-cuts-deaths-revealed-how-5939071

From the latter article:
Instead of the real-life numbers they plan to release 'Age Standardised Mortality Rates', which present deaths as a ratio when compared to the population as a whole.

Won't it be possible to calculate/estimate the actual death figure from the released figure and the usual age-specific death rate, which can probably be found somewhere (Office of National Statistics, perhaps)?
The DWP says it's unfair to reveal full death figures because seriously ill people are more likely to die than others.

Maybe this is a piece of clumsy journalism/misquoting, but if not, it would mean that the DWP were admitting that they were declaring seriously ill people fit for work!
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Maybe this is a piece of clumsy journalism/misquoting, but if not, it would mean that the DWP were admitting that they were declaring seriously ill people fit for work!

Yes, basically.

It makes sense to issue whole-population-age-adjusted figures because that that allows you to see if there's an excess in the group under consideration.

But if they find an excess and say, 'well, they were more disabled and that's why they died' then yes, massive own-goal and freakish, really freakish stupidity.
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Maybe this is a piece of clumsy journalism/misquoting, but if not, it would mean that the DWP were admitting that they were declaring seriously ill people fit for work!
The DWP admit nothing. Right up until their deaths, the former claimants were fit for work. The claimants have always been fit for work. Then they died. What possible connection could there be?

In all seriousness, IDS is shameful. He's currently in Parliament attacking Labour's record on child poverty (one of the few things they got right, making massive cuts in the numbers) and accusing them of "hypocrisy" as he prepares to cut Tax Credit benefits at the same time as 'redefining' child poverty along the lines of his own prejudices.

Although, in keeping with PR's new non-partisan political approach, I find it fair to point out that his predecessor at the DWP Yvette Cooper waived through the pilot stage of ESA, seemingly not noticing that acceptance rates had been halved from IB, rather than the modest reduction expected. The self-same Ms Cooper is currently dining out on her own tale of severe illness in the Labour leadership hustings:
I’ve always worked long hours and always believed it was right to work hard and support your family. But I did have 12 months twenty years ago when I was too ill to work. I hated it and I was desperate to get back to work, but I couldn’t. And I had to get sickness benefit and housing benefit to pay the bills and pay the rent. So I will always support strong rules on contribution, on expecting people to work, including compulsory jobs. But I will never slag off people on benefits because they cant work as “work shy” or “scroungers”. That’s what Tories do. Not Labour.
Ms Cooper's illness? ME! There's an interesting article from the time in The Independent, where she says, in her defence, that she never felt psychiatrically ill and feels strongly that she had a physical illness, but also that, because she recovered, she thinks most people can (also quoting some dodgy statistics which have since been refuted by the doctor she references, William Weir).

People wishing for friends in high places should perhaps be careful for what they wish for!
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Although, in keeping with PR's new non-partisan political approach, I find it fair to point out that his predecessor at the DWP Yvette Cooper waived through the pilot stage of ESA, seemingly not noticing that acceptance rates had been halved from IB, rather than the modest reduction expected. The self-same Ms Cooper is currently dining out on her own tale of severe illness in the Labour leadership hustings:

Ms Cooper's illness? ME! There's an interesting article from the time in The Independent, where she says, in her defence, that she never felt psychiatrically ill and feels strongly that she had a physical illness, but also that, because she recovered, she thinks most people can (also quoting some dodgy statistics which have since been refuted by the doctor she references, William Weir).

People wishing for friends in high places should perhaps be careful for what they wish for!

20 years ago Yvette Cooper would have been about 26 (born 1969). That means that she is likely to have been one of the post-EBV cases discussed in this thread, thus more likely to have a relatively-good recovery. OTOH she may have been misdiagnosed. As so many people are.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
Ian Duncan Smith...


I HATE this insulting, patronising attitude that people who are not working all have to be HELPED back into work by incentivising them by impoverishing them; otherwise those who are able to work will just sit around helplessly waiting for someone to help them. So that they can't afford decent clothes to wear to interviews, can't afford transport to interviews (let alone to the job itself - in my area many employers require employees to have cars as there is so little public transport), can't afford proper food so that their health suffers further?

Paying people a decent level of benefit is the way to help them back to work, not starving them into submission or treating them as though they are a different species.

As for the disabled people who are able to do some work, they need flexibility from employers. Even those who have shown initiative and started small businesses will probably soon lose their support as they are not earning enough. In my case this would mean I can only get benefit if I earn enough not to need it! Weird kind of safety net...